https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52411 Where manufacturing details, Modvat declarations and RT-12 returns were already filed, the department was treated as having notice of the nature and use of the scrap or rejected materials, so suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. On that basis, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was unavailable and the demand was time-barred. Because the demand itself could not survive limitation, the penalty on the assessee failed. The separate penalty on the proprietor, based on alleged aiding and abetting of suppression, also could not stand because the primary allegation was unsustainable and the ingredients of Rule 209A were not made out. en-us Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:47:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52411 Where manufacturing details, Modvat declarations and RT-12 returns were already filed, the department was treated as having notice of the nature and use of the scrap or rejected materials, so suppression of facts with intent to evade duty was not established. On that basis, the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was unavailable and the demand was time-barred. Because the demand itself could not survive limitation, the penalty on the assessee failed. The separate penalty on the proprietor, based on alleged aiding and abetting of suppression, also could not stand because the primary allegation was unsustainable and the ingredients of Rule 209A were not made out. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52411